Currently
pending are the cross-motions for summary judgment that were
filed on behalf of Arena Energy, LP and Alliance Offshore,
LLC with regard to Alliance's cross-claim against Arena
for defense and indemnity. (Rec. Docs. 134 and 140).
Considering the evidence, the law, and the arguments of the
parties, and for the reasons fully explained below,
Arena's motion is DENIED, and Alliance's motion is
GRANTED.

Background

In
October 2013, the plaintiff, Donald Batiste, was employed by
Quality Construction and Production, LLC as a rigger. He and
his crew were working on a construction project on an
offshore platform in the Gulf of Mexico that was owned and
operated by Arena Energy, LP. Helmerich & Payne
International Drilling Company (“H&P”) was
conducting drilling operations on the platform pursuant to a
contract with Arena. The plaintiff claims that he was injured
on October 26, 2013 while standing on the deck of a vessel
engaged in the task of backloading material baskets to the
vessel from the platform. It is undisputed that the vessel
was the M/V NICHOLAS C, which was owned by Alliance Offshore,
LLC and time-chartered to Arena through an agreement brokered
by Kilgore Marine Services, LLC.

The
plaintiff contends that he gave an “all stop”
signal that was ignored by the H&P crane operator and
that the crane operator proceeded to set a material basket
down on a pipe that was laying on the vessel's deck. In
his complaint, the plaintiff alleged that he was injured when
the basket's contact with the pipe caused him to be flung
into the side of the basket and also caused the pipe to rise
up into the air and strike him in the head.

The
plaintiff asserted negligence claims against several
defendants, including Arena and Kilgore. Kilgore never
answered the complaint, and the plaintiff amended his
complaint to substitute Alliance for Kilgore. (Rec. Doc. 60).
Arena filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted,
and the plaintiff's claims against it were dismissed with
prejudice. (Rec. Docs. 126, 127). Similarly, Alliance filed a
motion for summary judgment, which was granted, and the
plaintiff's claims against it were dismissed with
prejudice. (Rec. Docs. 136, 137). The plaintiff's claim
against H&P was settled.

The
instant motions both address Alliance's cross-claim
against Arena for defense and indemnity. (Rec. Doc. 75).
Alliance argued that the provisions of the time charter
agreement entitle it to defense and indemnity from Arena,
while Arena argued that Alliance is not entitled to
contractual defense or indemnity.

Analysis

A.
The Summary Judgment Standard

Under
Rule 56(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary
judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute as
to any material fact, and the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. A fact is material if proof of
its existence or nonexistence might affect the outcome of the
lawsuit under the applicable governing law.[1] A genuine issue
of material fact exists if a reasonable jury could render a
verdict for the nonmoving party.[2]

The
party seeking summary judgment has the initial responsibility
of informing the court of the basis for its motion and
identifying those parts of the record that demonstrate the
absence of genuine issues of material fact.[3] If the moving
party carries its initial burden, the burden shifts to the
nonmoving party to demonstrate the existence of a genuine
issue of a material fact.[4] All facts and inferences are construed
in the light most favorable to the nonmoving
party.[5]

If the
dispositive issue is one on which the nonmoving party will
bear the burden of proof at trial, the moving party may
satisfy its burden by pointing out that there is insufficient
proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving
party's claim.[6] The motion should be granted if the
nonmoving party cannot produce evidence to support an
essential element of its claim.[7]

B.
Maritime Law Governs Alliance's
Cross-Claim

As
explained in previous rulings, subject-matter jurisdiction in
this case is premised on the jurisdictional provision of the
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (“OCSLA”). But
a finding that the court has OCSLA jurisdiction does not
determine the law that must be applied by the court in
resolving the parties' disputes. Here, the parties agree
that general maritime law applies to the contract at issue.
An agreement to transport people and supplies in a vessel to
and from an offshore drilling rig is a maritime contract, and
the construction of a maritime contract is governed by
maritime law.[8] Additionally, the time charter agreement
at issue in this case expressly states that it “shall
be construed in accordance with the admiralty and maritime
laws of the United States of America.” (Rec. Doc. 134-2
at 11).

C.
Principles of Contract Law Apply

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Charter
party agreements, such as the master time charter agreement
in this case, are contracts subject to the general rules of
contract law.[9] The interpretation of an indemnity
provision in a maritime contract is ordinarily governed by
federal maritime law.[10] It is also a matter of
law.[11] Under maritime law, &ldquo;[a] contract
of indemnity should be construed to cover all losses,
damages, or liabilities which reasonably appear to have been
within the contemplation of the parties, but it should not be
read to impose liability for those losses or liabilities
which are neither expressly within its terms nor of such a
character that it can be reasonably inferred that the parties
intended to include them within the indemnity
coverage.&rdquo;[12] &ldquo;A maritime contract should be
read as a whole, and a court should not look beyond the
written language of the contract to determine the intent of
the parties unless the disputed language is
ambiguous."[13] The words used in a maritime contract
should be given their plain meanings unless the provision is
ambiguous.[14] To the extent possible, all terms used
in ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.